Tuesday, January 27, 2009

If I may quote Randy's endorsement of Barack Obama (and by the way Blogger, it's really time to add those two words to your spellcheck dictionary), way back when he was just Senator Obama - "I’m a political junkie, but I’ve largely kept that out of xkcd (other than occasional cracks about science and net-related issues)." And later: "I’m disabling comments because I don’t want xkcd to become a place for ongoing political argument, anger, and hurt feelings. The internet has enough political discussion threads."

Now I know that this is not the first time Randy has broken his own rule - for example, making fun of Sarah Palin, looking to 2012, and That Stupid Mr. Hat Goes To Washington thing. But this one is nothing more than plain old topical commentary. Nothing wrong with that in principle - the Daily Show and the Onion do it well - but a week of lag time is a little too much. The whole incident - which I don't think anyone, anywhere, considers a big deal - seems much too tiny to warrant making a joke off of. It's not like this comic says anything more than "ha ha, roberts fucked up in front of a whole lot of people." Oh sure there's all that "what if Randy had done the presidential oath" but that's not the point. The humor comes from Roberts fucking up (if you don't believe me, imagine the exact same comic had everything gone fine - or, for that matter, change "presidential" to "vice-presidential" and "john roberts" to "john paul stevens"). No humor there.

This is also another comic where we lose a lot by not having anything more than stick-figure art. I think that a nice picture of the Capitol and a throng of people behind them would have made the comic at least more interesting to look at, and would not have left us with the sense that these are just two (white) guys standing in a bleak room somewhere. However - I think that had Randall made Obama's skin brown but not had any facial features, it would probably have ended up just looking creepier. Are eyes really too much to ask? I can ever draw them if you want.

This is a textbook example of a comic that will not stand the test of time. It's topic is pettier than usual, more specific than usual, and quite frankly, makes me think Randall should just stay our of political humor altogether. People think that you can make fun of politics by going "ha ha, isn't this person stupid??" but it needs to be so much more than that. At the very least, "ha ha, isn't this person a giant hypocrite??" is a good place to start, but Randall "I'm not going to put politics into my webcomic" Munroe is hardly the person to start talking about hypocrisy.

I mostly hated it because it grabbed, as Jay said, "the most out-there thing he could think of"... except that it had /nothing/ to do with inauguration. Now, if he had somehow scrambled the actual words of the swearing-in bit in a way that was humorous (I really don't know the speech and therefore cannot come up with anything out of my own ignorance), rather than smash two completely unrelated topics together... well, I might have hated it less. More art would have been fun, too.

From what I've seen in the forums, the xkcders seem to find this comic exceedingly clever, as after you realize what the joke is, you can see that the second speaker is actually repeating what the first speaker says because haw haw oh em gee it's the inauguration but fucked up!!!! Woooooooooo Randy you really got us on that one. Way to go.

By the way Randy thanks for trying to save the joke with a menstruation comment. His efforts at inappropriate humor are becoming more and more similar to someone saying something boring and then shouting "PENIS!" as an escape route.

I give this one credit for the zoom-out effect -- that is, it's just a pair of heads in a box, but by the end of it, the setting becomes apparent. I also agree with Carl that this won't hold up for long and that Randall could have gone for something either more topical or geeky to insert in the dialog.

"Vaginas are part of the female anatomy. They're about this deep, and menstruate about once a month. Can we, as a culture, move on?"

There must be an echo in here, but this comic is the biggest non-sequitur fail I've seen in some time. Not only that, but it takes the form of something called the 'pull back and reveal' which is like the Big Mac with fries and a shake of lazy comedy. Here's an example, and I'm paraphrasing Ed Byrne ('cause I can't remember the original words) here from a rant he did about them:

"I was chatting to someone at the bar last night... beer belly, big beard - I won't be talking to... her again!"

Can you see why this is not funny? Also if Ed Byrne is reading this then I apologise for mangling your joke.

But I am feeling benign towards XKCD today, because the next comic, #536, was great! What you talkin' 'bout Anon, actual art + space elevators = good XKCD, despite the joke.

I really wouldn't consider this a political comic, or Mr Hat Goes to Washington, for that matter. It's tangentially related to politics without a doubt and besides... compared to last week, this one was brilliant.

Looking to 2012 and Mr. Hat series really have nothing to do with actual politics. What politic arguments and agendas do those push? Really I think you should be looking more deeply into the comics and statements of the person you constantly criticize.

From what I gather, the topic of Obama's messed up oath got relatively good amount of news. If I recall correctly it was enough to warrant being on the home page of nytimes.com. And considering it was so widely watched, I feel like it's a decent topic to cover.

I completely disagree with your assessment of this particular comic. I read the caption after I read the dialogue and the punchline was completely unexpected. I LOL'd. Any additional hints, such as drawing of Capitol or blackness of the "president" would just give away the surprise.

BTW, I'm not American and hardly even noticed the news of John Roberts messing up the oath, so this is definitely not the main source of humor here.

Being a woman is the most out there thing Randy can think of? Well, shit, I can think of more out-there things than switching genders. Seriously Rands, if you really had the prowess with women your comics brag about...

Realist, honey, humor is one of those things that is--oh, fuck it, what's the word, it's like objective but the opposite, because it's relative or--SUBJECTIVE that's what I'm trying to say! Humor is subjective. Not all jokes require you to not expect the punchline! Indeed, if you have a shitty punchline anyway, it's better to make the rest of the joke funny.

You also can't prove things! Proving is pretty much impossible, even in science. The word 'proof' or 'prove' is usually evidence of someone who is a pompous imbecile who doesn't know what he's talking about, actually! FUNNY, THAT.

Also, if you thought this comic was good, you are both objectively AND subjectively wrong.

Also also, funny =/= clever and funny =/= good. "Snakes On a Plane" was funny, but not particularly clever or good. Unless Randall is intentionally trying to make strips that are funny because they are neither funny nor good (a la the aforementioned "Snakes On a Plane"), he is failing. Hardcore, epic failing.

poore, there's more to Mencia aside from his penchant for stealing material. Randall could be referring to the fact that Mencia simply isn't very funny. The simply evokes no reaction from me, aside from mild disgust.

"Oh look, I am so edgy touching on race and religion in this manner. Too bad I followed Dave Chapelle who did the race thing, but was actually funny."

My point being, you shouldn't be so quick to jump on the hypocrisy train. This could be an innocent jab at a mediocre, which I fully support.

One thing I should probably say: it's pretty clear Randall has decided to get political. Maybe he's smug (or hopeful!) now that Hopey is president but I think, in any case, it doesn't merit a lot of attention in the future. He's broken his rule and doesn't seem apologetic.

Who cares whether this joke is political or not? It's one of the worst jokes I've ever seen on Xkcd.

It's like he thought: they screwed up one line in the inauguration... Wouldn't it be funny if they made some bigger mistake... In fact, wouldn't it be funny if they just said some crazy random stuff about "Wouldn't it be cool to be a woman?"Uh, no Randall, it wouldn't be funny- it would suck donkey balls.

This comic sucked, of course, but it would have sucked a whole lot more if the context was obvious before the punchline. You're right that "not all jokes require you to not expect the punchline." But this joke does, because a little shock is all it has to offer. As for the "subjectivity" of humor, well, haha, this whole blog is premised on the ability to critically judge the subject, and I don't see Carl prefacing all his barbs with "I feel that...." No, humor has enough constancy that we can all tell that xkcd has gotten a lot worse lately, and also that Carl, though conscious of this fact, is otherwise incompetent in carrying the banner of xkcd-suckdom due to his own impaired sense of humor.

um rob i TOTALLY think I am objectively right. I've said it a lot of times i think.

Anyway realist I would love it if other people carried forth the banner of xkcd-suckdom, to use your wonderful phrase, regardless of whether they agree with me on why. pleasegodrandallstop.blogspot.com would be a great site to start. I just seem to be the only one with enough time and passion to actually have done this,

Realist: That's really very thoughtful of you, because I think there's nothing lower than being a fatty (which you are).

Okay, so fun fact! Relativism is "the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute." Do you see what the Oxford American Dictionary did there?

DO YOU SEE IT?

It showed you that you're using the word wrong! Because art and humor are not knowledge, truth, or morality! Actually they are pretty much the opposite. Speaking as an artist, art is my subjective interpretation of a moment in time. When I write something, there is not a single person in the world who can view it the same way I do. Successful art can reach more people, but it remains a personal experience for each viewer. That is, indeed, the whole purpose of art. The hope is that you will reach more people, but it remains subjective.

Criticizing art (or humor), therefore, is the act of capturing your subjective reaction to a subjective piece of art in such a fashion that you hope to connect with as many people as possible. It's a type of art in its own right.

But here's the thing. Critics are expressing an opinion which simply can't be 'wrong.' Because there is always an implied 'to me' in there. 'This joke would be better if it had X.' You can disagree--and apparently you do!--but to say the critic is wrong is to reveal that you are, in fact, a useless human being, worthy of no better treatment than a malformed, hideous monster, best locked away in a cunningly devised labyrinth and used to frighten small children.

Seriously, /this is the internet./ You do not have to preface everything with 'THIS IS AN OPINION' tags, because THAT IS ALL THE INTERNET IS.

Rob: Fat insults and dictionary definitions, nice. Could you be more boring? I could refute your silly words--saying that xkcd sucks is art, but saying that xkcdsucks sucks violates the laws of subjectivity?--but I fear it would be lost on the audience.

Carl: Sadly, I fear you've cornered the market on xkcd sucks blogging--don't think there's enough demand to justify another one. I'll be happy to point out where both Randall and you go wrong using existing avenues, though.

Speaking from May, and as a Canadian, I'm not sure I ever knew the context of this comment, and only got a mild chuckle from "heh, guy's an idiot lol." So since once the "omg guy screwed up the speech" bit fades, the only joke left is "guy is stupid." That means the setting is very important, otherwise, it's just some guy saying weird things as other guy repeats them. To the end of firming up the setting, I can say, I'd have appriciated additional art. Making that mental connection between "bad at inarguaration speech" and "guy talking about being a woman" would have been easier, for certain.

captcha's pigan. A pig pagan? ARE THEY IN LEAGUE WITH THE VIKINGS?!?!?!

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.